Archive for June, 2009

The following is a snippet from the Shaykh’s commentary:
Sufyan narrated to us, on the authority of Zayd bin Aslam, Sayyidina Ibn ‘Umar told his grandson, ‘Abdullah bin Waqid, “O my son, I heard the Prophet of Allah ta’ala say, “Allah ta’ala will not look at a person who drags/lets down (Jarra) his pants (Izar) arrogantly.”

Dawud bin Qays narrated Zayd bin Aslam’s narration with the addition of the event surrounding the saying, he said, “My father sent me to Sayyina Ibn ‘Umar, (when I arrived) I asked, “Can I enter?” he recognized my voice, and said, “what is this my son? When you go to someone, say “as-Salamu ‘Alaykum”, and if they respond, then ask ‘can I enter’, he said, then he saw his son and his outer garment was being dragged (was hanging), so he (Sayyidina ‘ibn Umar) said, “raise your pants, for indeed I have heard”…he mentioned the hadith.” Imam Ahmed narrated it.

Vocabulary:
Jarra – trail on the ground, drag along.
Izar – piece of clothing which is tied on the waist, and goes below it (the waist)
Khayla’ – arrogance (takabbur)
Isbal – to let the clothing (Izar) hang down

Commentary by ‘Allama as-Saffarini:
‘What is gained (from the ahadith) is that sometimes, to let it hang (isbal) is with pride, and other times without pride. The first is haram, according to the most correct position, and the second is sometimes due to a necessity, and at other times without necessity. The first one is without dislike when it’s done without deceit otherwise it’s haram, and the second is makruh, and it is doing Isbal without need, or pride, or deceit, because of the saying of the prophet, “whatever is below the ankles is in the fire”…. He said in the middle of the Marfu’ hadith, “and raise your Izar until the middle of the shin, and if your staying in your house then until the ankles (above them), avoid doing isbal of the Izar, for it is indeed from pride, and Allah ta’ala doesn’t like arrogance (of a person).”…. Imam Bukhari and Imam Nasai narrated on the authority of Sayyidina Abi Hurayra on the authority of the Prophet, “what is below the ankles from the Izar is in the fire.”
Source: Sharh Thulathiyat Musnad al-Imam Ahmed by ‘Allama as-Saffarini

There are many ahadith where the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the companions to raise their pants above the ankles, from them Sayyidina Umar, Sayyidina Sufyan, etc. The actions of the companions are clear, especially through the hadith of Sayyidina Ibn Umar who advised his grandson to higher it, and this was after the passing of Sayyidina Muhammed, peace be upon him, from this world. We can understand the practice of the noble companions through the hadith, and the importance they gave to raising it.

There are many places in the Quran where this word has been used. Scholars agree that this is from the Divine Acts, as Imam al-Qurtubi stated. Thus it’s necessary for us to be cautious in how we explain it. Scholars have differed over istiwa’ (usually translated as established), such that ‘Allama Mari’ al-Hanbali has given over ten different opinions. It’s interesting to note that the Majority of the Salaf didn’t give the interpretation for this; we have the statement of Imam Malik wherein he states “‘Istiwa is known, the ‘how’ is inconceivable,” though we don’t have any narration of him explaining the meaning of Istiwa’… ‘Allama al-Qurtubi Maliki says that “it’s known” means we know it linguistically, meaning lexically (the various meanings found in the dictionary), or as ‘Allama Mari’ says after saying he’s not pleased with ‘Allama Qurtubi’s interpretation, that what ‘known’ means is that “(Him) describing (Himself) Exalted is He, that He’s ‘ala al-‘Arsh (over the throne), (it’s) known through the fully established path with tawatur (many transmissions) (i.e. In the Quran as Shaykh Ghawiji pg.49), understanding of it’s reality is a matter which returns to it’s howness…(Page 122).

It should also be kept in mind that when words such as Istiwa’ is translated, it shouldn’t have any resemblance to creation. As the Quranic ayah states ‘there is nothing like Him’ and so every attribute of His has no resemblance to creation. And so when someone translates words from the Quran or Sunnah, they should keep this in mind. The following paragraphs concern one interpretations of istiwa’. Some Muslims today deem every single dictionary meaning as correct such as sitting (Julus or Qu’ud), while others say it’s a divine act befitting Him. Most of the interpretation will be taken from ‘Allama Mari’s Aqawil at-Thiqat, and Hafidh’s Fath.

The first interpretation that ‘Allama Mari’ al-Hanbali gives for Istiwa’ is what “Muqatil1 and Kalbi2 narrated on the authority of Sayyidina ‘Ibn ‘Abbas that Istawa’ means ‘Istaqarra’ (which means to settle), and this, if it’s authenticated3, necessitates interpretation, for Istiqrar (Settleness) is known through corporeality (tajsim).”

Hafidh Ibn Hajar4 says, “Ibn Battal said the people differed regarding Istiwa’… The Jismiyya (Anthropomorphists) said it means al-Istiqrar…. As for the interpretation of the Jismiyya, it’s wrong as well, because Istiqrar is from the descriptions of corporeal bodies, and it necessitates indwelling (Hulul) and limitation (tanahi), and this is impossible for Allah ta’ala, and it’s appropriate for creation…”

Hafidh5 says, “Abul Walid bin Rush said in Sharh al-‘Utbiyyah, Imam Malik said… “The ‘Arsh is not the Allah ta’ala’s place of settleness, Blessed and Exalted is He from resembling His creation”

Imam Abu Hanifa said in his Wasiyya, “We affirm that Allah ta’ala did istiwa’ (rose) over the ‘Arsh without having need of it or settling (istiqrar) upon it, He is the Protector of the ‘Arsh and what is other than the ‘Arsh. Were He to be in need (of it) when He decreed the existence of the world and it’s governance such as the creation, and were He to become in need of sitting and establishing (al-Qarar) before creating the ‘Arsh, (then) where was He before creating the ‘Arsh? Thus He is Exalted from it, a high exaltedness.”

‘Allama Ibn Qudamah in his Lum’atul I’tiqad says concerning the attributes, “Whatever comes to the mind or imagination, then Allah ta’ala is other than it. From those (Sifat) is the saying of Allah ta’ala, “The Rahman did istiwa’ upon the ‘Arsh”.

InshAllahu ta’ala it’s clear that to deem it to be istiqrar is incorrect according the Ulema.

1.“Abul Hasan Muqatil bin Sulayman al-Balkhi, Ibn al-Mubarak said, “His tafsir would be great if only he was trustworthy”. Waki’ said, “He was a liar”. Imam Abi Hanifa said, “Two evil opinions have come from the East: Jahm the Mu’attil (stripping the attributes from Him) and Muqatil the Mushabbih (one who makes semblance of God with creation).” He died around 150 Hijri. Imam Bukhari said, “Muqatil is nothing, at all”. I (Imam Dhahabi) say, “they (the scholars) agreed that he’s rejected.” (Siyar pg. 1158).
2.“al-‘Allama al-Akhbari Abu An-Nadr Muhammed bin as-Saib bin Bishr al-Kalbi al-Mufassir. He was also a master in lineaology except that he was a Shi’I, whose Ahadith are rejected… Ath-Thawri wouldn’t mention his name when narrating from him. He died in 146 Hijri.”
3.Shaykh Ghawaji in his book on Kitab al-Ibanah (pg.78-79) writes, “Istaqarra, which is attributed to Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Istiwa’ is completely false, because it’s tajsim (corpreiality). Rather what is correct is that it be said, “Istiwa’ is known because it’s mentioned in the Quran, and the Kayf is inconceivable, and this is narrated from Sayyidah Umm Salamah, Rabi’ah ar-Ray, and others, and Allah ta’ala knows best. And it’s said, we affirm for Allah ta’ala what He affirmed for Himself while freeing Him of resemblance (to creation).”
Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaout in his notes on ‘Allama Mari’s work says, “It’s not authenticated from him (Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas).” Page 123.
4.In the Kitab at-Tawhid, under the ayah “and His ‘Arsh was on the water.”
5.Kitab Manaqib al-Ansar, under the title The Manaqib (Merits) of Sa’d bin Mu’adh.

All of these scholars attest that Fiqhul Akbar is Imam Abu Hanifa’s book, the well recognized Baralwi scholar Mawlvi Ahmed Ridha Khan (1340 Hijri) attested to it as well. Imam Kurdi says, “if someone objects and says that Imam Sahib has no book” I say, “this objection is that of the Mu’tazilites, they say Imam Sahib didn’t author any book in ‘Ilm al-Kalam, and they intend to say that Fiqh ul Akbar and al-‘Alim wal Muta’allim aren’t his work, in reality Imam Sahib has recorded many of the (points) of ‘Aqaid of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah in his book. This is the (baseless) objection of the Mu’tazilites borne out by their claim that Imam Sahib was a Mu’tazili (We seek Allah ta’ala’s refuge), and according to the Mu’tazilites Fiqh ul Akbar is the authorship of Abu Hanifa Bukhari, but this assertion is completely incorrect because I read ‘Allama Mawlana Shamsul Millat wad Din al-Kurdiri Baratiqini al-‘Imadi’s handwritten work stating that both of the books are that of Imam Abu Hanifa’s, then he says, “upon this is agreement of a many groups of scholars”.

‘Allama Shibli Nu’mani and others were influenced by (the objections) of these people in rejecting Fiqh ul Akbar being Imam’s work. He has given his opinion and the proofs for his stance, but through research and historical evidence his arguments are weak; one of the objections is concerning the narrator Abu Muti’ who has been criticized by the Muhadithin, however this isn’t taken into consideration, and thus (the claim is that) it’s Abu Muti’s work, but this carries no weight. Without a doubt many of the Muhadithin criticized him, but the base argument is that he was jahimi and Murji’ in ‘Aqidah, which is mentioned in the books narrators. But, is the ascription (to the sects) valid? And if it’s true, then in according to what meaning is the term Murji’ applied? And with the application of Murji’ is there a (disgraceful) mark left on him? Wasn’t Imam Abu Hanifa alleged to be a Murji’ without evidence? And if it’s rejected on this basis, then we can reject the ahadith mentioned in the Sahihayn in which are those who ascribed to the Murjites and other sects. Hafidh Ibn Hajar writes regarding Abu Muti’, “he was a man of insight into Ray’ (deriving rulings based on deductions), ‘Allama, with great awesomeness, Ibn al-Mubarak would honor and respect him for his din and knowledge” (Lisan al-Mizan). ‘Allama Dhahabi refers to him as Faqih (‘Abar fi Akhbar man ghabar). ‘Allama AbdulQadir al-Qurashi says, “(He’s the) narrator of Fiqh ul Akbar on the authority of Imam Abi Hanifa” (al-Jawahir al-Madiyyah). The point being, this book is not of Abu Muti’, rather it’s Imam Abu Hanifa’s, Abu Muti’ is just a narrator of the book.

Mawlana Shibli objected that the manner of presentation and summarization is in the specific manner of the later scholars, however this argument has no life (worth), because Imam Tahawi (321 Hijri) wrote his Aqidah Tahawiya in a condense manner and presentation, while he has only two (men) linking him to Imam Abu Hanifa, and so, his book should be denied as well. Other than this, Imam Abu Yusuf’s (182 Hijri) and Imam Muhammed’s (189 Hijri), who are the immediate students of Imam Sahib, work isn’t much different than Imam Sahib’s (Fiqh ul Akbar).

Mawlana Shibli also raised the objection that the teriminology of the philosophers, such as ‘Arad and Jawhar, didn’t enter the Muslim community during his time, without a doubt the books of the Greeks were translated into Arabic during the time of Mansur ‘Abbasi, however this time was during the end of Imam Sahib’s life. But this objection is also extremely weak, because someone like him, who was endowed with great memory, piercing intellect and great understanding and who studied with hundreds of teachers from different countries, and whose students comprised of those from the Greek lands and Persia, and who debated the misguided sects, for him to know Jawhar and ‘arad and put it into his book, why is it a strange matter? When, predominantly, refuting the philosophers or their students was his real intent. Only the general terminology of the Greeks was used, and ‘Allama Ibn Khuldun writes that the full translation of Icledius was completed in the time of Abu Ja’far Mansur. When the translation of the Greek work was done in the time of Mansur, then how distinguishing is it when some terminology was definitely present in the beginning of the era, so many times the Islamic Khilafa went to the land of the philosophers and Greeks to get wealth and power.

Mawlana also mentioned that Fiqh ul Akbar isn’t mentioned in Sahaif, Sharh Maqasid, Sharh Muwaqif, Milal wa Nihl, and other books, however this objection has no merit either, because the lack of mention doesn’t necessitate the lack of existence. When many of these books don’t even mention Aqidah at-Tahawiya, so would its existence (authenticity) be denied?”

It should be noted that there are reports about Imam Abu Hanifa stating that he was into disputing the people of innovation before taking the path of studying fiqh as mentioned by Saymiri in his Akhbar Abi Hanifa, Tarikh Baghdad, Manaqib Abi Hanifa li Makki, Athmar al-Janiyya li Mulla Ali Qari, ‘Uqud al-Jaman li Salihi, Khayratul Hisan li Haytami and others, though Hafidh Dhahabi doubts it due to it spreading after the time of Imam Abu Hanifa.

It seems that the work that is narrated by Abu Muti’ is known as Fiqhul Absat, while the text that Mawlana Sawati wrote the introduction to is Fiqhul Akbar (not narrated by Abu Muti’ as Shaykh Abul Hasan explains. In any case, the following is what Shaykh Abul Hasan wrote on Sunniforum about the various works attributed to Imam Sahib.

Courtesy of Shaykh Abul Hasan:

I will try to answer from my reading of the Sharh to Fiqh al-Akbar by Mullah Ali al-Qari, with the notes by our Shaykh: Wahbi ibn Sulayman Ghawiji (Hafidhahullah) and other points – Insha’Allah.

There are actually 2 works going by the title Fiqh al-Akbar – both attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa. One is short the other is more lengthier. Let us call the shorter one: Fiqh al-Akbar (I) and the longer one: Fiqh al-Akbar (II).

There is a third and small statement of aqeeda attributed again to Imam Abu Hanifa, and this is the one that comes from Abu Muti’i al-Balkhi. It is commonly known as: Fiqh al-Absat

Fiqh al-Akbar (I) is the shorter text which has a Sharh to it by Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (ra). It has been published by Da’iratul Ma’arif, Hyderabad, India. Imam Abul Layth al-Samarqandi also wrote a Sharh to this edition of the Fiqh al-Akbar.

Fiqh al-Akbar (II) – the longer text – is the one that Br. Faqir has posted here with the notes of Shaykh Ninowy. This is the one that Mullah Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi has utilised in his Sharh – hence it seems correct to say that this is the one that is most likely the true and attributable work of Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa. There is also a commentary to it by a certain Shaykh Abul Muntaha Ahmed ibn Muhammad al-Maghnisawi (this is the one I understand Mufti Abdur Rahman is going to publish in English).

Shaykh Wahbi Ghawiji said that the Fiqh al-Akbar (may be the longer version) was ascribed to the Imam al-A’zam by Ibn Nadim in his al-Fihrist (p. 285) – along with the attribution of the following titles to the Imam: Risala ila al-Batti, Kitab al-Alim wal Muta-allim riwâya Muqatil, Kitab radd alal-Qadariyya.

It is clear to me that Shaykh Wahbi accepts Fiqh al-Akbar (II) to be by Imam Abu Hanifa – meaning from his dictation (Imla).

Now, let me add that the Fiqh al-Akbar (II) does have an Isnad going back to Imam al-A’zam, and Shaykuna Wahbi Ghawiji said that he saw a good manuscript (Makhtuta Jayyida) in the Maktaba of Shaykh al-Islam Arif Hikmat in Madina al-Munawwara from the narration of:

Ali ibn Ahmed al-Farisi from Nasr ibn Yahya from Abu Muqatil (Hafs ibn Muslim al-Samarqandi) from Isam ibn Yusuf from Hammad the son of Imam Abu Hanifa – from his father

The work which contains the controversial point is found in Fiqh al-Absat and a variant of it is found in Fiqh al-Akbar (I) as you quoted from Dr GF Haddad:
Quote:
Abu Haneefah (RH) said, when asked of his opinion of the one who says, ‘I do not know whether Allaah is above the heavens or on the earth.’ – “He has disbelieved, because Allaah says, “The Most Merciful rose above the Throne.” , and His Throne is above His seven heavens.’ He was then asked , ‘what if he said that Allaah is above His Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth?’ He said, ‘He has disbelieved, because He has denied that He is above the heavens, And whosoever denied that He is above the heavens has disbelieved.” [‘al-Uluww’ of adh- Dhahabee, also ‘Sharh Aqueedah at-Tahaawiyyah’ of ibn Abee al-Izz al-Hanafee]”>>

Mawdu` and a lie in its attribution to the Imam. Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-`Uluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Muti` al-Hakam ibn `Abd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn `Adi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!.

Therefore, what is questionable is what Abu Muti’i al-Balkhi spread in the name of Imam Abu Hanifa. Al-Balkhi was a pupil of Imam Abu Hanifa’s and he was criticized by a number of Imams, though Imam ibn al Mubarak held him in esteem, he seems to have been regarded as a Faqih by some – but his narration that the Hashwiyya love to quote to bolster their aqeeda is a unique report of his alone – and no one from the major students of Imam Abu Hanifa has attributed this same point like Abu Muti’i, not even the later Hanafi Mujtahid Imam: Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi in his famous Aqeeda known as Bayan al-Sunna wal Jama’a – to Imam Abu Hanifa. Hence, it is discarded.

The alternative and controversial version found in Fiqh al-Akbar (I) was briefly discussed by Dr Haddad in the second link you gave. Dr Haddad said (with reference to Fiqh al-Akbar (I) to my comprehension)
Quote:
Even so, the text mentioned by the Hanafi authorities is: “Whoever says, ‘I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth’ is a disbeliever and, similarly, whoever says, ‘He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth ‘ is a disbeliever.”

As to its meaning: al-Bayadi said in Ishaaraat al-Maraam: “This is because he implies that the Creator has a direction and a boundary, and anything that possesses direction and boundary is necessarily created. So this statement explicitly attributes imperfection to Allah Most High. The believer in [divine] corporeality and direction is someone who denies the existence of anything other than objects that can be pointed to with the senses. They deny the Essence of the Deity that is transcendent beyond that. This makes them positively guilty of disbelief.” As quoted in al-Kawthari, “Khuturat al-Qawl bi al-Jiha” (“The Gravity of the Doctrine That Attributes Direction [to Allah Most High]”) in his _Maqalat_ (p. 368-369). Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi states something similar in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and others.

Most of the contents of Fiqh al-Akbar (I) and Fiqh al-Absat would not be in contradiction to major Sunni Ulama’s understanding of what was the most likely aqeeda of Imam Abu Hanifah, except the point discussed above.

There are also works like the Wasiyya attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (printed in Hyderabad, India in the year 1321 AH – with the Sharh of Mullah Hussain ibn Iskandar al-Hanafi).

I have attached scans in the next thread from the words of the Hanafi Hujja: Mullah Ali al-Qari, with the notes of our Shaykh: Wahbi – showing the problem with Abu Muti’i al-Balkhi, why his narration is rejected, and how the quote from him is understood by the likes of the Ash’ari Imam: al-Izz ibn Abdas Salam.

And Allahu a’lam.

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

Shaykh Abul Hasan posting a scan of ‘Allama al-Kardari’s work:

Imam Hafizud-Din ibn al Bazzaz al-Kardari (d. 827 AH) testified to the work known as Fiqh al-Akbar in his Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa. The scans are taken from the first printed edition, Hyderabad Deccan, India, dated 1321 AH.

Read from the second line from the bottom of the pdf file (bottom half after the central line on both pages is from Imam al-Kardari)

May be the rejectors of this work can expound on the verdict in the scans.

Wassalam
Attached Images

Imam al Kardari on Fiqh al Akbar.pdf (3.31 MB, 42 views)

Courtesy of Faqir from Sunniforum:
The Ash’arî Shaykh Ab al-Muzaffar al-Isfarâyînî [d.471] said in his book al-Tabsîr fîl-Dîn:

“Al-Fiqh al-Akbar was narrated to us by the trustworthy through a reliable way and a sound chain of transmission from Nasîr ibn Yahyâ [up to] Abu Hanîfa.”

Shaykh Wahbï Sulaymàn Ghàwijï said in his edition of al-Qàrï’s Sharh. al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 13) that he saw in Maktabat Shaykh al-Islàm ‘Àrif Hikmat in Madïna (Compendium #226 or #234) a manuscript of the Fiqh al-Akbar with the same chain.

Sadr al-Islam Imam al-Pazdawi [d.482] says in his book ‘Usul ad-Din’ pg. 15 under the first article:

“The knowledge of Kalam is one in which scholars have differed on its learning, teaching and writing books regarding it. [Kalam] is the science which describes the articles of faith and the fundamentals of the religion which is obligatory on every muslim. Imam Abu Hanifah [rahimahullah] learnt this science and would debate with the mu’tazilites and other bidyis; and he used to teach this science to his students in his early days. He also wrote a few books in this discipline – some which have reached us and many were obliterated [maHaaha wa ghasalaha] by the ahl al-bid’ah.

Among his books which have reached us are: ‘kitab al-`alim wa’l mut`allim’ and ‘kitab fiqh al-akbar’.”

[translation by abu hasan of sunni port]

Imam al-Maghnisawi [RH]:

“verily the book al-Fiqh al-akbar written by Imam al-A`zam, is a sound and widely accepted book”

Conclusion: Whatever problem the sanad might have, doesn’t detract anything from it being a work of AhlusSunnah wal Jama’ah since many scholars have used it and have written commentary and recommendation.

This post is regarding relegating the meaning of various attributes that the Messenger has characterized Him with or that which Allah ta’ala has characterized Himself with. Many muslims are bent on taking the literal meaning, which is wrong, since the literal meaning can denote that which is negated since He’s is transcendent and nothing is like Him, as the Ayah states. When we look at the wording of the scholars, we see that they mention, generally, two things, one is we believe in the attributes and actions and pass it on without interpreting them and the second is without asking about it’s modality. It’s interesting to note that both things are mentioned by the Ulema, the statement of not explaining and not asking about it’s modality, two different things. This post is only meant to bring out the sayings of Ulema, both salaf and khalaf, regarding tafwid. Some of the material is taken from Sunniforum, which Shaykh Abul Hasan has posted, May Allah ta’ala reward him.

The Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923), who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his al-Sunna [The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that

Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning “Allah’s descending,” “seeing Allah,” and “placing His foot on hell”; and the like, and he replied:
“We believe in them and consider them true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na) [emphasis mine].”

And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’ [translated above as established]:

“He is ‘established’ upon the Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) how He wills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by any describer

Hanbalis in creed do not give literal meaning to the attributes of Allah, but defer the meaning to Allah, as Imam Ahmad did:

‘We believe in them, affirm them without how and without meaning.’

[Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad, p. 6]

Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din RH said in Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad, his work which has been distorted by Mr. al-`Uthaimin with an over excess of footnotes, supplemental chapters and theological digressions,

‘And whatever of that appears ambiguous to us, it is compulsory on us to establish the text and leave seeking its’ meaning and returning knowledge of it to the speaker and we make the responsibility of its’ meaning go to the one that related it.’

Note well this was mentioned by Ibn Qudama via a route leading back to Hanbal ibn Ishaq, who is Thiqa (trustworthy), and his report was not rejected by ibn Qudama, unlike later people who try to reject these types of narrations from Hanbal (like they did with the Ta’wil from Imam Ahmad as recorded by al-Bayhaqi with his sanad that he authenticated, and mentioned as such by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wal Nihaya from al-Bayhaqi):